Monday, June 30, 2008

Are Most Utahns Not Smart Enough to Throw the Rascals Out?

I had several Republican friends who were ecstatic 8 years ago at supporting a George W. Bush presidential campaign. I don't hold out too much hope that they in retrospect consider it the most embarrassing vote(s) of their political lives. Most Utahns seem to be content to be spoon fed their politics, and most of you wouldn't know a statesman/stateswoman if you had a one-hour conversation with them.

Years ago, as part of my Information Systems major at BYU, I accepted a one-semester internship at the LDS Church Office Building. To save gas and stress, I became a part of a 15-person van pool from Provo to Salt Lake. I remember on one occasion several of

It's time to throw all of the rascals out, and not just half of them every few years. If you don't get rid of all the cockroaches, they will be back.

the people in the van discussing how in LDS priesthood meetings over the years they had come to the consensus that to be a good member of the Church you had to be a Republican. How sad.
I cannot think of a better illustration of people divorcing themselves from their God-given responsibility to think.

So it's not surprising then, that Utahns voted in their mind-numbed way for George W. Bush--not once but twice--by large majorities, nor that they have coalesced in large part behind another Establishment Republican, John McCain, after their fair-haired Mormon boy bowed out of the race at the behest of the Kingmakers. It's not much less surprising that most of the rest of Utahns support "The Man of Change", Barack Obama, who cavorts with terrorists, who supports America haters, and who has already begun to change his tune on fundamental campaign issues so that they match the tune of his establishment overlords. He never did really tell you what change he was talking about, did he? Well...now you know.

If Utah Mormons were really living their religion, they would be thinkers. But they are not thinkers, because if they were, the Democrat Candidate who got the most votes in Utah would have been Dennis Kucinich, and the Republican would have been Ron Paul. Almost all the rest

Please...this time around vote for someone other than McCain, Obama, and your senator who has served himself faithfully for the last 36 years.

of the major party candidates are or were cookie-cutter establishment robots.

In his book, Tragedy and Hope, Georgetown professor Carroll Quigley mocked Americans as he told us straight up how easy it would be to fool most of us all of the time.
"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy."
There is a bright spot amidst the political malaise. I don't yet know if I'll vote for Jason Chaffetz or his Democrat challenger in the Utah 3rd Congressional District race in November, but I do know that the man who is happy that he lost is out on his keyster after about five too many terms in the US House of Representatives.

Seniority is no reason to be elected to high office again and again. Being the lesser of two evils is not a reason, either. The mounting problems that we have in the United States of America--both foreign and domestic--can be traced largely to one cause: the election of charlatans to political office.

It's time to throw all of the rascals out, and not just half of them every few years. If you don't get rid of all the cockroaches, they will be back.

This year, like no other in recent memory, is an excellent time to band together with the millions of voters who have had a gut full of the Establishment Republicans and the Establishment Democrats. Please...this time around vote for someone other than McCain, Obama, and your senator who has served himself faithfully for the last 36 years.

Utahns--when will you wake up and start voting for representatives who are not part of the problem? Do you have the ability to think for yourselves? I hope so, because a train wreck is on the horizon if you don't think quickly.





Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Britons Have Had a Gut Full of James Hansen and Global Warming

James Hansen, of "The Sky is Burning" fame, stated recently that we have essentially reached the point of no return in the "man-caused climate change" debate. Meanwhile, after surveying the evidence, most Britons have decided that Hansen must be making a lot of money from the Al Gore Climate Change Campaign.

The sky is falling...I think.

Hansen's opinion is that those in big energy should be thrown in prison. I give as my counter-opinion that Hansen and Al Gore should be thrown in prison for trying to scare the crap out of people with unfactual "facts".

At any rate, according to James Hansen, we have reached the point of no return, with nothing to show for it, but if we go any farther, it could get really, really, bad, instead of just really bad.

In testimony before congress Monday
Dr. Hansen, who heads NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and who advises Al Gore on the environment, testified once again to the existence and dangers of global warming. He presented charts that predict the loss of the entire Arctic ice shelf within two decades, and stated that we are already past safe levels of CO2 in our atmosphere.
Hansen also said
that CEOs of big oil and coal companies should be tried for crimes against humanity and nature for purposefully misinforming and misdirecting the public in regards to global warming...
Hey, now there's an idea. Since Hansen gave his opinion on global warming--which is 90% substantiated (10 percent is a pretty big uncertainty, by the way) by a plethora of scientists on the government dole--that those in big energy should be thrown in prison, I give as my counter-opinion that Hansen and Al Gore should be thrown in prison for trying to scare the crap out of people with unfactual "facts".

By the way, that arctic ice shelf? It's

It is important to talk about how warmings have actually happened in the past, and not place all the blame on people, especially if you only dare to do it with 90% certainty. If the blame is in the wrong place, the solutions will be, too.

not been shrinking as of late, the victim of a global climate that has not warmed in nearly 11 years. What about the Antarctic? That ice is growing. Including the sea ice. Large chunks that have recently broken off are likely because of more ice than due to less.

Brian Fagan, in his new book The Great Warming, chronicled an event that is not very convenient to many scientists--you know, the ones who say that man is to blame and so we need to take away liberty in order that earth doesn't explode--those people. Fagan says that there was a great warming in the 12th and 12th centuries. Interestingly, man could not have caused it. Fagan's main point is that such warmings are difficult to deal with, regardless of how they happen.

I think, therefore, it is important to talk about how warmings have actually happened in the past, and not place all the blame--with the accompanying notion that government can solve the crisis by taking away man's freedoms--on people, especially if you only dare to do it with 90% certainty. If you place the blame in the wrong place, likely your solutions will not be solutions after all.

A majority of Britons agree. They're starting to get sick of all the people who are getting paid by the government to be CCCL's (Climate Change Chicken Littles).
The majority of the British public is still not convinced that climate change is caused by humans - and many others believe scientists are exaggerating the problem, according to an exclusive poll for The Observer.

The results have shocked campaigners who hoped that doubts would have been silenced by a report last year by more than 2,500 scientists for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which found a 90 per cent chance that humans were the main cause of climate change and warned that drastic action was needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Why are people souring on the climate change swindle? Because, in large part, they're getting smarter.
There is growing concern that an economic depression and rising fuel and food prices are denting public interest in environmental issues. Some environmentalists blame the public's doubts on last year's Channel 4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, and on recent books, including one by Lord Lawson, the former Chancellor, that question the consensus on climate change.
Oh, yeah. That "consensus".




Monday, June 23, 2008

I'm Voting for Jason Chaffetz Because His Name is Not Chris Cannon

I don't think Chris Cannon has done a terrible job in Congress over the last umpteen years, but I do think he hasn't done a great job either, which is why I will be voting for Jason Chaffetz to replace him.

In recent newspaper interviews, Cannon gave as the most important reason to vote for him is that he understands how to deal with the Washington power structure. In other words, he knows how to play the game. For me, and for Jason Chaffetz, this is no game. Its our security, our liberty, and our money that Chris Cannon has helped to play fast and loose with for over a decade.

Here are a few other things I like about Chaffetz.

  • Federalism: He believes that local government is generally better, that the Federal

    Chris Cannon says he knows how to play the Washington game. For me, this is no game. Its our security, our liberty, and our money that Cannon has helped to play fast and loose with for over a decade.

    Government has broken far away from its Constitutional moorings, and that programs such as No Child Left Behind should be abolished. He sees that the Federal budget is bloated, that earmarks contribute to the problem, and that wasteful and unconstitutional spending need to be curbed dramatically.

  • Energy Independence: Chaffetz supports being able to make ourselves independent by extracting our own petroleum from our own soil (so does Johnny-come-lately Cannon when it becomes a big issue). He supports nuclear energy, but opposes taking other peoples' nuclear waste. He opposes recent Cap and Trade legislation as a government power sweepstakes.
  • Health Care: Chaffetz supports improving private access to Health Care, and he realizes that government is largely the problem with people's inability to get health insurance, and that the US does not have the resources to provide ineffective health care for everyone.
  • Immigration: One of the highest priorities for the US is to protect US citizens. A border fence/wall will go a long way in solving this ignored problem.
One area that I disagree with Jason Chaffetz (and Chris Cannon's view is similar) is with regard to the Middle East. Chaffetz' web site states:
Middle East. We must continue to protect our interests in the Middle East and help defend our allies in the region. This includes continuing to apply diplomatic pressure on rogue governments like Syria and Iran, promoting peace and democracy in Iraq, and insuring the defense and security of Israel.
I disagree. We need to butt out of the Middle East, because we are causing most of the problems there. I wish in this regard that Chaffetz could see the sagacity of Ron Paul's position. But then again, not many people do.

I think Chris Cannon is a great guy. I just think we can do better in Congress. Jason Chaffetz will do better. That's why he's got my vote.




Sunday, June 22, 2008

Family Fun at the Utah Summer Games

My wife took a couple of our kids to the track and field events of the Utah Summer Games last year. She couldn't get away this year, so I volunteered to take the kids, and, on somewhat of a dare, I registered for and competed in 3 events.

So I figured that if I was going to not look ridiculous, I'd better start training.

It was my son Jacob's first time jumping over a hurdle, let alone competing in a hurdling event, and he was very nervous. It turns out, though, that he's something of a natural in the

An Olympian I'll never be, but I'm well on my way to being much more fit than I've been in about 2 decades.

hurdles, winning the silver medal in his race. He has as one of his goals now to be a hurdler extraordinaire. When faced with attempting new things, he has a lot more courage than I do.

The rest of us, including son Cache and daughter Mauriana, competed in the mid-distance events. Without visiting with each other, we all happened to sign up for the same running events--the 200-, 400-, and 800-meter races. That made it easier to train together, and we all benefited from it.

Each of the kids competed in the long jump, which I chickened out of, because (1) I hadn't practiced enough before we left, and (2) it was scheduled before my running events, which I didn't want to miss by virtue of a long-jumping injury. (For the real story, please refer back to paragraph 3 above.)

I did set three goals, however, as to the times I wanted to run in my races. In all three cases, my race times were faster than my goals, and I actually medalled in two of the events (in both medal events I happened to come in well behind my same-aged and much-more-fit cousin). An Olympian I'll never be, but I'm well on my way to being much more fit than I've been in about 2 decades. On the way home from Cedar City, I established 3 new goals. Next year, a little older, I plan to do a little better.

I don't know now why I didn't compete in track and field as a high-schooler. Now, however,
I can't wait to get out to the track. Our family has now committed that for the rest of the summer, in addition to our morning canyon runs, we'll spend 2 or 3 early mornings at the high school track, not only getting ourselves in better shape, but also bringing ourselves closer together as a family.

Each member of our family has also made a commitment that next year we'll compete in the Utah Summer Games together. We hope to see you there, too.




Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Utah's Treasurer Race: Who's Running the Dirtier Campaign?

Perhaps more important questions than "who are you going to vote for as Utah treasurer" are these:

(1) Have the latest allegations of impropriety against Walker affected your decision as to who to vote for on June 24th?
(2) Was Lt. Governor Herbert's decision--to delay his findings about the allegations until after the primary election--the correct one?

It's hard to say what actually happened in a recent meeting between Mark Walker and Richard Ellis, Republican candidates for Utah state treasurer. Ellis recently alleged that Walker offered to increase his salary by 53% if he dropped out of the race. Walker

It appears that Herbert has come to a conclusion on what happened. He should share it--before the primary election.

said he didn't.

That part doesn't bug me so much as this: Utah Lt. Governor Gary Herbert, whose job it is to investigate and report on such issues, has stated that he doesn't want to release his findings until after the primary. That could be bad for either Walker or Ellis--it's hard to say--but the implication is strong that Herbert has come to a conclusion on what happened. He should share it.

Yesterday in the mail I received a flyer from the Walker campaign that accused Ellis, on one side of the 8 1/2 x 11 sheet, of being the one who is actually running the dirty campaign. I fully expected to turn the sheet over and read a denial that Walker had offered Ellis a job. It wasn't there. Instead, there were a couple of short blurbs about how Ellis is opposed to tax cuts. Ellis is careful on his campaign blog to refute that allegation, which has been around for a couple of months now.

It's interesting to see who generally supports Mark Walker for treasurer--the big Republican guns in Utah. I think it would be better to see some everyday people, like your or me or a Zion's Bankcorp executive, vouch for Mark Walker's financial skills.

I often disagree with Bob Bernick of the Deseret News, but this time I think he's onto something in the case of Walker vs. Ellis:
A not-so-subtle message is being sent by GOP Attorney General Mark Shurtleff and Republican legislative leaders these days: "We will be pushing the political/candidate agenda in this state, thank you very much."

This year, Shurtleff and GOP legislators back state Rep. Mark Walker, R-Sandy, to be the new state treasurer. At 32, Walker, a former Zions Bank midlevel manager, has limited experience in actually investing large sums of money. Treasurer Ed Alter, in office 28 years, is retiring. His chief deputy, Richard Ellis, who does have experience in big-money investing, thought he would just walk to the GOP nomination.

Ellis had been Huntsman's head budget writer and fought GOP legislative leaders over various tax plans/budget priorities on behalf of his boss over the last few years before taking the top assistant job with Alter. (Huntsman has declined to take sides in the GOP treasurer's race — a high-brow neutral position not shared by Shurtleff et al.)

Several times Huntsman recommended a lower tax cut while GOP legislators wanted bigger tax cuts. Ellis was often Huntsman's guy arguing against bigger tax cuts both publicly and especially behind the scenes with GOP legislative leaders.

You can't make a bigger mistake with these GOP lawmakers than to cross them on their proposed tax cuts.
I don't know, but I have a sneaking hunch that Walker offered Ellis a job. I wish Herbert would tell us before the primaries next week. But since he won't, I think I'll vote for the more qualified guy anyway.

And that would be Richard Ellis.




Sunday, June 15, 2008

Are You Going to Get the New Monopoly Enviro Edition?

It's only 71 days away--you can get the environmental edition of the ever-popular Monopoly Board game. Are you going to get your copy? I think I probably will.

Monopoly has been one of my favorite board games ever. I have the original edition, the German edition, and the U.S. Army edition. The new "World" edition sounds like a pretty cool idea--as long as I don't have to become a part of the European Union.

;-)

Grist has this to say about the soon-to-be released game:
"Refuse to play Monopoly because you fear Electric Company sources its power from coal? Fear not! Game-maker Hasbro is updating everyone's favorite interminable game, and in the Here and Now: World Edition, Water Works and Electric Company will be replaced with Wind Energy and Solar Energy."
Amazon.com adds that
Streets will be replaced by cities around the globe, chosen earlier this year by fans on Monopoly's website. So while you may be skeptical about the lessons your child is learning while buying up large cities in an attempt to own the world, at least you can feel good about the fact that they are learning to eschew fossil fuels. Or, well, as long as they don't buy any of the modes of transport (land, sea, air, space) replacing the railroads in this new edition. I guess when you're buying up the world, telecommuting just doesn't cut it. But, hey, at least the water will be free!
Many of you probably think that just because I don't subscribe to the blame-man-for-global-warming mantra that I think we should run rough-shod over the environment. Not true. I think it's great that wind turbines are popping up in places where wind power makes sense. If solar panels were a little cheaper--and didn't cost something like 20 years to break even--we'd probably become more self-sufficient at our house in that regard. We are, though, on the verge of
taking the plunge to outfit at least one of our cars to use compressed natural gas (CNG). With the potential of saving at least $6 per day for about 250 work days a year, plus other driving errands, the break-even point on that investment could be as soon as 2 and a half years.

So to restate--I think that (1) man is not causing global warming, but (2) we should be responsible environmental stewards anyway, and (3) I like the idea of the new Monopoly World edition.

How about you?




Friday, June 13, 2008

If Most Muslims Like Americans But Hate American Government, What Does That Indicate?

It indicates that your government is lying to you. It also indicates that Americans ought to quit electing shysters to government--because the reasons that most Muslims have for hating our government are mostly good reasons.

Update 6/17/2008: The addition of a quotation that supports my claim that the Bush Administration cast al Qaeda and radical Islam as capable of taking over the world.

The Prophecy.
George Orwell was prescient when he wrote the book 1984, the principles of which have been part of American foreign policy for at least the last 50 years. A main theme of the book regards how government maintains power by

Most Muslims do not harbor animosity for the American people. We must, therefore, start electing people who don't hate Muslims.

keeping the people in a state of perpetual siege by conjuring up enemies that don't really exist. When the Communist "juggernaut" was suppressed, the American Establishment had to find a new bogey man, for which--to them--radical Islam was perfectly suited. George W. Bush has been the enemy-conjurer extraordinaire, but he's not been the only one.

At first we heard the claim that Saddam Hussein had the capability of dropping chemical (and nuclear?) weapons on the United States using remote-piloted airplanes, despite the fact that he had no air force at all, and that not one US aircraft had ever been shot down during over a decde of patrolling Iraqi airspace. On this and other specious pretexts we attacked Iraq.

It may be too late not to elect a Muslim-hating president this time around, but it's not too late to start wondering how we keep getting ourselves into such a mess every four years.

When that didn't hold water, we decided that we were there to build democracy.

Now we have to be worried that al Qaeda is on the verge of creating a world-dominating caliphate and that Iran will have nuclear world dominance by tomorrow? Yet rumors abound that an attack on Iran by the US or Israel is imminent. For the love of Pete!

Ironically, the United

When the Communist "juggernaut" was suppressed, the American Establishment had to find a new bogey man, for which to them radical Islam was perfectly suited. Oh, the irony that we created radical Islam.

States helped to build up radical Islam as a supposed bulwark against Communism. Is it possible that 50 years ago, the Establishment thought that radical Islam would someday make an excellent enemy? It's making a "good enemy" for the Establishment now, and most of the rest of us are dumb enough to believe the lies.

The Reality.
The reality is this:

(1) al Qaeda has no possibility of taking over the world.
(2) Iran is years away from making a nuclear warhead, let alone having the means to catapult it half way around the world to hit us with it, and
(3) most Muslims hate us exclusively for our foreign policy, but otherwise appreciate what America stands for.

Michael Scheuer, in his book Marching Toward Hell, has this interesting observation:
Polls taken in the Islamic world by reliable Western firms...over the past fifteen-plus years invariably find two consistent realities. First, enormous majorities in Muslim countries...express hatred for the same set of foreign policies that Osama bin Laden and other Islamist leaders have identified as mortal attacks on Islam. ...Second, majorities (sometimes sizable ones) in the same Muslim countries express admiration for the stiving of Americans for political and social equity for all citizens, for American generosity..., and for the ability of American parents [to take care of] their children. Taken together, these poll results strongly suggest that U.S. leaders are lying when they tell Americans that they are being attacked for how they think and live and not for what their government does overseas. (p. 155)
Update 6/17/2008: In his book Devil's Game, Robert Dreyfuss describes how the Bush Administration dramatically overstated the radical Islamist threat to suit its imperialistic aims:
...the Bush Administration deliberately inflated the specific threat from al Qaeda itself. Despite Attorney General Ashcroft's unsubstantiated claim in 2001 that thousands of al Qaeda operatives had infiltrated the United States, however, in the...years since after 9/11, not a single violent act by al Aqeda occurred in America. And there is no shred of evidence that al Qaeda has acquired or is about to acquire any nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons.

No combination of Middle East states [or other entities]...is able to mount a threat to the United States in a manner that would justify an enterprise called "World War IV". But by describing the Islamist threat in such an exaggerated way, the Bush administration and its neoconservative allies created a pretext for an imperial expansion of of the U.S. presence... (p. 305)
Barack Obama held his foreign policy cards close to his chest--until Hillary suspended her campiagn. Now, with his recent revelations at AIPAC, the cat is out of the bag, and we know that regardless of whether Barack Obama or John McCain becomes president, US foreign policy will not substantially change.

This is not difficult, folks. Most Muslims do not harbor animosity for the American people. We must, therefore, start electing people who don't hate Muslims. It may be too late not to elect a Muslim-hating president this time around, but it's not too late to start thinking about how we keep getting ourselves into such a mess every four years.

This lesser-of-two evils tap dance has got to stop. Let's resolve ourselves not to be duped, but rather to elect leaders who have America's--and the world's--best interests at heart.




Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Hamas: Israeli Pawn and Palestinian Peacebreaker?

The 2005 book, Devil's Game, by Robert Dreyfuss, offers up the hypothesis that Hamas is a tool of the Israeli secret service. Hamas is constantly fighting with Fatah (the main component of the PLO--for examples click here and click here), and that in and of itself is not good for the Palestinian peace process. But is it really possible that Hamas is Israel's token to help ensure that peace never comes to Palestine?

In 1983, a Palestinian Arab named Ahmed Yassin was arrested by the Israelis for coordinating the stockpiling of firearms, some of which were found in his home. He was sentenced to 13 years in

Members of the Israeli governing elite now look back on the creation of Hamas as a huge mistake. Oh well, the West is used to opening Pandora's boxes all over the Middle East. What's one more?

prison, but released after only a year--fueling claims that he was secretly in alliance with the Israeli Shin Bet organization.

In 1986 and 1987, Yassin organized the founding of Hamas. It is widely believed that Israel gave their support to ensure that the creation of Hamas was a success.
There were persistent rumors that the Israeli secret service gave covert support to Hamas, because they were seen as a rival to the PLO," says Phillip Wilcox a former U.S. ambassador...who headed the U.S consulate in Jerusalem at the time.
Yasser Arafat claimed that Yitzhak Rabin told him of Israeli support for Hamas, and that he admitted in retrospect that it had been a "fatal error".

The PLO accused Yassin and his Hamas organization of conspiring with "reactionary Arab regimes" and "...in collusion with the Israeli occupation." Arafat pointed to the hundreds of schools, mosques, and other institutions that the Israelis had ceded to Hamas, and he said "Hamas is a creature of Israel."

Circumstantial evidence, at the least, points to this likelihood. Whenever PLO/Fatah tried to make an accord with the Israelis, Hamas seemed to be there to scuttle it.
"Undermining the peace process has always been the real target of Hamas and has played into the political ambitions of Likud", wrote one analyst. "Every time Israeli and Palestinian negotiators appeared ready to take a major step toward achieving peace, an act of Hamas terrorism has scuttled the peace process and pushed the two sides apart."
Even Barack Obama recently made overtures to the Israelis, indicating that a powerful force exists somewhere behind the scenes. Could Hamas be a part of the scheming to ensure that this powerful force doesn't lose power?

Members of the Israeli governing elite now look back on the creation of Hamas as a huge mistake. Oh well, we're used to opening Pandora's boxes all over the Middle East. What's one more?




Saturday, June 07, 2008

Crafting the Iranian Enemy: Part 1

In so many cases in American history, if we'd just mind our own beeswax like George Washington counseled us, we'd be so much better off today. In perhaps no other case is this axiom more true than with regard to Iran. Our involvement in Iranian political affairs beginning in the early 1950's has caused chickens the size of vultures to come home to roost.

By 1951, Iranians had had a gutful of the British hegemon whose state petroleum company had expropriated a significant portion of Iran's oil revenues. After the assassination of General Ali Razmara, Mohammed Mossadegh, an elected member of Iranian Parliament, having (by his intent to nationalize Iranian oil) largely created and become popularized by the wave of anti-western nationalism, was appointed as the new prime minister by the Shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi.

Mossadegh's nationalistic rise to power marked him as a hated target of the West. A CIA- and MI6-sponsored coup caused the overthrow of Mossadegh in 1953. The shah returned from exile to resume the throne and

Actually, Bill O'Reilly, we do need a history lesson, because far too few people understand how our history got us to where we are today with a megalomaniacal madman staring us down with intent to barbecue us from afar with nuclear warheads.

piss off the ayatollahs, who--without CIA help this time--overthrew him in 1979, taking 52 American diplomats hostage for 444 days.

We need to care about how our interference in Iranian affairs got us where we are today, but for some, history is very inconvenient.

O'Reilly Doesn't Care About History When it Is Inconvenient

In a September 10, 2007 interview of Ron Paul on the O'Reilly Factor went, in part, like this:
RON PAUL: [The neocons] want to spread this war. This has been the plan by the neoconservatives to have this major overall — this revamping of the whole Middle East, precisely the reason the Al Qaeda is growing. The Al Qaeda is growing because of our policy. Our national security is threatened because of our policy. And it makes it much worse.

So I see the Iranians as acting logically and defensively. We've been fighting the Iranians since 1953. We overthrew their government through the CIA in 1953. We were allies with Saddam Hussein in the 1980's. And we encouraged him to invade Iran...

O'REILLY: All right, so I just want to — we don't need the history lesson...

RON PAUL: But you have to understand...

O'REILLY: I do understand the region...

RON PAUL: You have to understand the history.. If you don't understand the history, you can't....

O'REILLY: But we don't have time to do the history lesson tonight.
Actually, Mr. O'Reilly, we do, because far too few people understand how it got us to where we are today with a megalomaniacal madman staring us down with intent to barbecue us from afar with nuclear warheads.

Especially now because even Barack Obama has stated that he will do everything possible as president to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons.




Thursday, June 05, 2008

Imperialism and Environmentalism: The Twin Pillars of American Suicide

If it seems like an otherwise intelligent person or group of people continue to advocate stupid positions--rest assured it was planned that way. First of all, it doesn't make sense that the US would extend its military power into other countries (in search of terrorists to destroy), running up trillions of dollars in debt, without providing sufficient protection of its own borders. Similarly, it doesn't stand to reason that American leaders would thwart our ability to maintain our standard of living on specious environmental grounds, especially when man-caused global warming has not been proven. Unless...

Chances are, if you are a part of the Establishment (or an Establishment wannabe), you support

(1) draconian environmental regulations to combat man-made global warming, and/or

(2) draconian injections of American military power into the affairs of other countries.

If

America will solve its problems when America actually faces its problems--the real ones. Not the unlikelihood that Iran will be able to lob a nuclear warhead 15,000 miles, and not the even greater unlikelihood that the United States congress can pass legislation to control cosmic fluctuations.

you're an Establishment Republican, you generally support American projections of firepower, but you pretend very convincingly that you're opposed to draconian environmental regulations, such as the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act. Likewise, as an establishment Democrat, you probably support oppressive environmental regulations, but you're quite good at giving people the impression that you oppose draconian excesses of American military power, such as the war in Iraq.

The fact that one party generally espouses one power grab while the other party espouses the other power grab is very confusing to those who haven't caught on to the game yet.

If we don't stop putting into power people who tout the egregious solutions of unproven environmental theories and who think it is America's manifest destiny to ride roughshod over the nations of the earth, then the United States as we know it will be history.

Based on the law that averages average about as many good results as bad ones, and that our averages seem to have been just about all bad lately, it just could be that a concerted effort is underway to destroy America and what we once stood for.

Imperialism. Democrats now claim that they are generally against the Iraq War, but most of them voted to give President Bush power to execute his lack of planning to his heart's content. You might remember that most Democrats supported Bill Clinton's attempt to bomb Bosnia back into the stone age just a few years ago, while Republicans generally opposed it. Hillary Clinton recently said that as president she

The purposes of raw imperialism and raw environmentalism are exactly the same. Perpetuation of power. The Establishment hacks want to hamstring you so bad economically that you won't have any time to realize what losers you keep voting into federal office.

would obliterate the people of Iran if its leaders decided to attack Israel with nuclear weapons. Barak Obama would attack Pakistan in an effort to root out al Qaeda. While they're piling it on, don't forget that McCain says that he would continue secretly spying on Americans.

If you haven't smelled it yet, step back and notice the pattern here. Don't let these Establishment cretins fool you. Establishment Democrats are every bit as intent on extending American military power around the globe. Ron Paul reminds us that
With the exceptions of Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, even the Democrats who postured as anti-war candidates for the 2008 primary elections are not especially opposed to needless wars.

The Revolution: A Manifesto, p. 2
The problems that such needless wars cause are becoming nearly insurmountable.
  • If the Soviet military occupied the United States, would you just take it in stride?
  • America's unfunded debt stands now at nearly 60 trillion dollars, a figure that is so staggeringly incomprehensible that our minds are almost compelled to dismiss it as trivial.
  • Our borders are a porous sieve, not only for the drugs that plague us, but for the dirty nuclear suitcase bombs that could soon shut out the daytime sky in parts of the country.
  • Imagine what a productive economic contribution tens of thousands of our military men and women could make if they were not assigned to missions of destruction in 130 different countries.
Environmentalism. Have you ever heard an environmentalist claim that man's activity is conclusively hurting the earth [a significant cause of global warming] right now? No, because it's not when compared to the forces of nature. Instead, all we ever hear is something like "If we don't do something now, in the next fifty years your children and their pets are going to fry!!" And so in Congress we debate such inanities as the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, which would not only not provide climate security, but would annihilate the American way of life.

Lieberman-Warner is in some ways a smoke screen for the fact that Congress voted down the ability of Americans to develop more of our own domestic oil resources so that we can be less dependent on our enemies. Meanwhile, China and India are drilling for oil 50 miles off the coast of Florida, and they are using the slant drilling technique, which makes it likely that they are sucking our oil out of the ground.

The EPA has projected a reduction of almost $3 trillion in US Gross Domestic Product if Lieberman-Warner is enacted. By that point the high cost of driving to work will be the least of our concerns. It's almost as if the establishment is attempting to come to the rescue of Paul Erlich, who claimed that by the

The fact that one party generally espouses one power grab while the other party espouses the other power grab is very confusing to those who haven't caught on to the game yet.

1980's hundreds of millions of people would die because they couldn't get enough to eat.

We have enough oil in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge to serve 5% of our consumption needs, but somehow that's off limits. Shale oil in the Colorado plateau is easily recoverable to the tune of perhaps trillions of barrels, but power mongers like Chuck Schumer in the Senate can only see far enough past their noses to ask President Bush to beg the Saudis to open the oil spigot a little wider.

For me, the blame-America-first, bring-America-down charade is getting a little ripe.
. . .

The purposes of raw imperialism and raw environmentalism are exactly the same. Perpetuation of power. The Establishment hacks want to hamstring you so bad economically--keeping you in bankruptcy or just barely able to eke out a living--that you won't have any time to realize what losers you keep voting into federal office.

We have had 35 years since the Middle East oil embargo to develop a coherent domestic energy policy--yet we still haven't. Ironically, it's been almost 35 years as well since the environmentalists claimed that the earth would freeze to death under a bout of man-made global cooling.

How much longer can you stand the torment? Til America is a figment of history?

Ron Paul paints an accurate picture of the American election shell game:
Every election season America is presented with a series of false choices. [But] anyone who wants to ask different questions...is excluded from the mainstream discussion.

And so every four years we are treated to the same tired, predictable routine: two candidates with few disagreements...pretend that the represent dramatically different philosophies of government.

The Revolution: A Manifesto, p. 1-2
America will solve its problems when America actually faces it problems--the real ones. Not the unlikelihood that Iran will be able to lob a nuclear warhead 15,000 miles, and not the even greater unlikelihood that the United States congress can pass legislation to control the environment-affecting acts of the cosmos.

The real problems confronting America are liberty and economy. The Establishmentarians who pack both sides of the aisle in Congress promise us very little of either.

That is a prescription for national suicide.




Sunday, June 01, 2008

What's a Suitable Punishment for a 7-Time DUI Offender?

My original title for this post was to have been "Robert Kent Van Dyke Should Get 30 Years in Prison". But with our current penal system--which allows most convicts to do nothing more than marinate in their own juices for the duration of their sentences--that's perhaps too convenient a solution. What should Van Dyke's punishment be for a seventh DUI conviction? And what kind of society would allow such a thing to happen in the first place?

I was incensed when I read a couple of days ago that Robert Van Dyke's attorney was asking the judge to overturn the jury verdict finding Van Dyke guilty of a seventh DUI conviction, especially after he served 5 years for a prior automobile

There is nothing that enrages me more than to see how lenient courts seem to be with drunk drivers, except for stupid lawyers who seem to have nothing better to do than wasting more of your tax dollars by dragging court cases into eternity.

homicide conviction--probably while under the influence of alcohol.

Are attorneys supposed to be that stupid, or are they just supposed to represent their clients in any way their clients ask them to? Or is such a request normal?

In my opinion, the jury was correct in convicting Van Dyke, despite the silly claim by his attorney that swerving in traffic and being clearly intoxicated while driving a motor vehicle "are not illegal".

There is nothing that has enraged me more over the years as to see how lenient courts seem to have been with drunk drivers, except for stupid lawyers who seem to have nothing better to do than wasting more of your tax dollars by dragging court cases into eternity.

But the point now is: what should Van Dyke's sentence be? Is it okay to just throw him in prison and let him waste away for thirty years? Or is that not enough?